Pages

Saturday, February 28, 2015

...to learn that voters when polled don't like tuition increases at UC. But that shocker is the result of a recent USC Dornsife poll as reported by the LA Times.

Now there is something a big unseemly about a USC poll on UC tuition. How much does USC charge? But we can put that issue aside, can't we?

Anyway:

...Among those surveyed, 57% favored the governor's approach, compared to
32% who favored increasing state funds or raising student tuition.
Support for Brown's view was consistent across all political, racial and
economic groups...

and

...In the poll, 53% of voters said they would be willing to have fewer
slots for in-state students at the universities if that would help avoid
a tuition hike for Californians, compared to 31% who favored a possible
tuition increase to help maximize places for in-state students...

The year 2018 seems far away. However, it happens to be a gubernatorial election year. We now have a candidate, one already gathering money for the campaign, as an ex officio member of the Board of Regents: Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom.* As is often pointed out, lieutenant governors in California don't have much to do. But they don't run as a slate with the governor and so are independent agents. Newsom is an independent agent relative to Gov. Brown. Unlike the regents Brown recently appointed, Newsom is on the Board independently, not because Brown wants him there.

Anecdote: Back in the day when Republicans could achieve statewide office and when Jerry Brown did his first iteration as governor, Brown had a Republican lieutenant governor, Mike Curb. In 1980, when Brown was running for president and had to leave the state to campaign, Curb would take advantage of a provision in the state constitution that made him acting governor whenever Brown was out of California. He would take executive actions as acting governor that Brown would have to try and unravel when he returned.

Newsom regularly appears at Regents meetings and has been trying of late to make a name for himself regarding the issue of UC coach salaries. He likes to distinguish himself from Brown, for example by opposing Brown's high speed rail project. Whether he will be the next governor is unknown at this point, but it is a possibility.

At the moment, Brown and Napolitano are negotiating a deal regarding tuition and funding. A deal may be reached - or not. But cultivating Newsom could be important in the long run, regardless of what happens. If a deal is reached, Newsom might oppose it, putting on his I'm-not-Jerry-Brown hat. If a deal isn't reached, he might propose something of his own. Whatever happens, it would be good to keep things as cordial as possible with him.

Friday, February 27, 2015

The LAO has issued a report on state higher ed funding in the governor's proposed budget. Much of the report deals with CSU and
community colleges. The components on UC, as in the past, express the LAO’s dislike for the governor’s habit of adding a lump sum to the
UC budget without regard to some measure of performance (such as enrollment). Instead of the governor’s $140 for next year
(conditioned on a tuition freeze), LAO prefers an inflation adjustment which it
puts at 2.2% and says equates to $126 million. [p. 4] (LAO’s base to which the 2.2% is
applied seems to be tuition plus state funding and omits some other state
funding.) LAO suggests a freeze on both
the current in-state and out-of-state enrollment for UC. [p. 3] Indeed, it asserts at one point that UC is currently
admitting more than the old Master Plan target of the top eighth. It suggests that the legislature set tuition
as a share of costs (presumably as an alternative to a tuition deal with the governor). [p. 4] LAO suggests that
faculty are overpaid relative to other public research universities (not the
comparison-8 universities which are half private) [p. 50] and that UC costs/student are higher than
such public universities. [p. 49] It suggests the
legislature might set the division between teaching and research since costs would go down if teaching loads went up. [p. 4] In reviewing
UC’s pension, the report notes that recent changes regarding state pensions
(but not UC’s earlier changes) cap pension payments at $117,000. [p. 51]

All of these matters are phrased in terms of things that
might be considered or inferred. You can view the
wording as intended to be just some interesting observations and ideas that are
among many alternatives, mere possibilities. Or you can regard the wording as weasel
language that hides what would amount to a major, major change in the
standing of UC, its governance, and its longstanding role in the state.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

A report has been released to a U.S. Senate committee that complains about costs of excess federal regulation of higher ed. A task force had been set up by a bipartisan group of senators to study the issue. The California Institute describes the release of the report in its Feb. 26 online bulletin:

On
Tuesday, February 24, 2015, the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee convened for its first hearing
regarding higher education. The hearing, entitled
"Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities:
A Report from the Task Force on Government Regulation of
Higher Education," outlined recommendations to
facilitate revision of inefficient and costly federal rules
and regulations faced by institutions of higher
education. Witnesses
included William E. Kirwan, Chancellor, University of
Maryland, Adelphi, MD and Nicholas S. Zeppos, Chancellor,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. The
task force consisted of sixteen presidents and chancellors.
"Through the task force's work, we have learned that
many regulations are well developed, address critically
important issues, and provide appropriate means of
institutional accountability. On the other hand, we have
also discovered that too many regulations are poorly framed,
confusing, overly complex, ill-conceived, or poorly
executed," testified Mr. Zeppos...

Note that while there is likely to be agreement with the general concept that excessive regulation is costly, the specifics of regulations may spark some disagreement about what is necessary and what isn't. For example, there is a citation of the regulation below as unnecessary:

Vaccination policies. Institutions must disclose their vaccination policies in order to be eligible for Title IV funding.43 While arguably related to student health, information about an institution’s policy does not make students any safer, and is unlikely to be a consideration for any prospective students or parents when they select a college. (pages 30 and 57)

That regulation may have seemed burdensome when the report was being put together. It may be viewed differently in the aftermath of more recent events.

The Institutes have been controversial in the U.S. because of their link to the Chinese government. In the U of South Florida case, however, there appears to be an attempt by the FBI to use an Institute connection for info gathering in China. Up to this point, to the extent there has been international controversy about the U of South Florida, it has been in connection with conflict in the Middle East.

UCLA's Confucius Institute is currently listed as being managed by a board chaired by EVC Scott Waugh. It also has an advisory committee chaired by Vice Provost of Intellectual Property and Industry Relations Kathryn Atchison whose background is in dentistry. The Institute basically seems to be in a reporting relationship to Murphy Hall.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

We now have archived the audio of the Feb. 20 meeting of the UC Regents' Committee on Investments. In the past, there has been little use of the public comments period in these meetings of the Committee, but this time there were anti-fossil fuel and anti-Israel speakers. A demonstration occurred which was largely removed from the official recording. Afterwards, there was discussion of various environmental investment issues. Former financial officer Peter Taylor attended the meeting as a guest and pushed, as in the past, for an emphasis on earning the assumed 7.5% for the pension plan. Returns on the pension and endowment funds were reviewed. Although past discussions of the endowment's performance have focused on its performance relative to internally-designated benchmarks, the issue of its performance relative to those of other major universities was discussed by CIO Jagdeep Bachler. In the past, such discussion - when it occurred - tended to be dismissed. However, relative to other major university endowments' returns, UC doesn't look so good. Bachler said he would be working on this matter. He indicated that in the past, the portfolio composition of the endowments was viewed as something of a residual of the pension and that approach should change. It wasn't clear what in practice that change in approach would mean. When it came to the more liquid TRIP and STIP funds, there seemed to be general agreement that UC had too much in these low-yielding liquidity-oriented funds. Although it wasn't mentioned, that observation could pave the way for addition movement of monies from those funds into the pension to deal with its underfunding.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

We have suggested in prior blog posts that it may be time for the Regents and UC administration to create more separation between official UC and student government so that when offensive behaviors in the latter occur, the university is not held directly responsible by the external world.* Much of the problem of late has occurred in the context of various anti-Israel divestment resolutions and statements at the campus level at UC, including at UCLA. Now posters have appeared at UCLA (and apparently at other non-UC campuses) which the anti-Israel group finds offensive.** It's interesting that the most recent systemwide campus climate survey really didn't touch on this particular matter, but that fact is apparently consistent with more general findings at other universities.***The temptation from the administrative perspective is to try to stay in the background and hope that the problem will pass. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Middle East, even when problems pass, they are more like painful kidney stones than permanent fixes - and new ones appear. So while greater separation would be advisable in the longer term, in the interim UC and UCLA have a de facto involvement that at this late date can't be avoided. As a second best for now, therefore, UC officialdom might try and arrange a time-out on passing resolutions on world affairs. Such resolutions are not of day-to-day concern to most students, don't affect Regental investment policy, but do produce antipathy for the university at a time when public support is needed in the current conflict over tuition and budget proposals.--*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2015/02/time-to-go-separate-ways.html [Links to various news sources through Feb. 18 are included in this reference.]**http://dailybruin.com/2015/02/24/four-other-universities-report-offensive-posters-targeting-sjp/***http://www.brandeiscenter.com/images/uploads/articleuploads/trinity-Anti-Semitism.pdf--UPDATE: Chancellor Block emailed the statement below today. While it calls for mutual tolerance, it doesn't suggest a cooling-off period (time out) as suggested above.

To the Campus Community:

I
have been troubled by recent incidents of bias on campuses
across our nation. Sadly, UCLA is not immune to these
occurrences.

At a
recent Undergraduate Students Association Council meeting, a few
council members unfairly questioned the fitness of a USAC
Judicial Board applicant because of her Jewish identity. Another
upsetting incident occurred last weekend when inflammatory
posters on our campus implied that Students for Justice in
Palestine was a terrorist organization.

We
should all be glad that, ultimately, the judicial board
applicant was unanimously confirmed for her position and that
the posters were taken down by members of our community. We are
pleased that the students who initially objected to the Jewish
student’s appointment apologized, and we are reassured that the
UCLA Police Department is vigorously investigating the matter of
the posters.

Yet
we should also be concerned that these incidents took place at
all. No student should feel threatened that they would be unable
to participate in a university activity because of their
religion. And no student should be compared to a terrorist for
holding a political opinion. These disturbing episodes are very
different, but they both are rooted in stereotypes and
assumptions.

Political
debate can stir passionate disagreements. The views of others
may make us uncomfortable. That may be unavoidable. But to
assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is
motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable.
When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to
delegitimize others, we are all debased.

A
first-rate intellectual community must hold itself to higher
standards.

Even
in the heat of debate, we must cultivate the skill and
sensitivity to express opinions without belittling others or
losing sight of their humanity. Speech that stigmatizes or tries
to intimidate individuals or targeted groups — even if it is
constitutionally protected — does not promote the responsible
debate essential for a healthy democracy. It is insufficient to
reserve empathy only for those who look or act or think like we
do. We must do better than that.

As
Bruins, we need to be thinkers and leaders who can see one
another without prejudice and can engage one another in a manner
that goes beyond slogans and is above slurs.

While
any incident of bias against any member of our campus community
saddens us, and we understand that these incidents may occur
again, we will always take appropriate action if the UCLA
Principles of Community or any laws are violated. And we will do
everything we can to support a healthy environment for everyone
in our community. If you feel you have been subjected to an
incident of bias or hate, resources
are available.

UCLA
will not be defined by intolerance. We will strive to create a
community that will honor the dignity of all its members even if
we struggle with one another’s ideas. We will strive to create a
community in which all of us can fully take part in campus life
and express our views and identities, safe from intimidation,
threat or harm. Let us all work together to do the good work of
creating that community.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Earlier in the day, we noted the problems with the Regental archiving of the most recent meeting of the Committee on Finance. Tonight, the iPhone version was still not operating. See the scan on the left. However, yours truly was able to get at least the start of the video to play in one PC browser.Tomorrow or soon thereafter, therefore, we hope to be able to make a complete recording for our indefinite archiving (as opposed to the Regents' one-year "archive").

Yes, nada (as above) is what you still get when you look for the recording of the Regents Committee on Investments last Friday - at least as of 8 am this morning. Yours truly continued to try Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome (as well as the link for iPhones) and got a blank screen. He notified the Regents over the weekend about the problem. It turns out that the meeting, at least as described by the Daily Bruin, was more exciting than most sessions of this committee.

Student protesters disrupted a University of California investments
planning meeting Friday at UCLA, calling for divestment from fossil fuel
companies and companies some say are involved in human rights
violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The students also protested
against the UC’s plan to increase tuition. The UC Board of Regents Committee on Investments met to discuss the
University’s sustainable investment plan and to review the performance
of its retirement plan, pension fund and working capital investments. As part of the University’s sustainability efforts announced in
September, the regents analyzed a proposed environmental, social and
governance investment framework that would integrate climate change and
other risks into its investment decision-making process. About 17 students from Fossil Free UC, Students for Justice in
Palestine and the United Auto Workers Local 2865 union, which represents
academic student workers, started the protest during public comment at
the beginning of the session. The regents temporarily adjourned the
meeting as protesters were cleared out of the room...

We continue to question Regents' policy of one-year (rather than indefinite) archiving of its meetings, which now are not even posted effectively on a timely basis. How about calchannel.com as the archivist? Calchannel.com preserves such official meetings as legislative hearings and webcasts them live. According to Wikipedia, while "nada" means nothing in Spanish, it means "hope" in Croatian. Can we apply the Croatian interpretation and hope that some change in regental policy will occur?

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Photo shows UC President Clark Kerr and regents at site of new UC-Irvine campus in 1961.

You might note that we have no audio or video of this older event. We also have no audio or video of the most recent regents event: the meeting last Friday of the Committee on Investments. The streamed recordings are not working. Yours truly tried Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome as well as a separate link that is supposed to work with iPhones. Nada. The authorities have been notified.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

It's not surprising that there is a lot of junk food sold on campus. It's a bit more surprising to see what's in the vending machines in the medical buildings. The photos above were taken in the 200 Medical Plaza Building. Even the "all natural" machine selection doesn't look all that healthy.

Friday, February 20, 2015

We continue to point out that the stream of divestment resolutions coming out of student government suggests that UC needs to change its connections with those activities and widen the separation between the two. The current situation ranges from offensive to humorous, but each iteration reflects on the university because of the official connection and recognition of student government as speaking for all students. Were student government treated as any other extracurricular activity, its participants could do and say what they want without a need for university officials to explain/critique. And external public support for UC, very much needed at present, would be less at risk.

Below is the latest example of the current problem, this time from Berkeley:

The ASUC Senate unanimously passed a bill urging UC Berkeley, the UC
Berkeley Foundation and the University of California to divest from the
Republic of Turkey and an affiliate institution Wednesday night. The bill cites
the Republic of Turkey’s denial of what many countries recognize as a
genocide of the Armenian people beginning in 1915, as well as what the
bill calls a “campaign of Armenian cultural erasure,” as its impetus for
divesting funds. The bill calls for divestment from both the Republic of Turkey and
the Export Credit Bank of Turkey, of which the Turkish treasury is the
sole shareholder. The UCLA student government unanimously passed a similar measure last month...

Did you know that the next cycle of Regents' meetings actually begins today at 1:30 pm? The Committee on Investments of the Regents starts the otherwise March cycle of sessions with its usual review of investment performance of the portfolio.

As promised, but with a delay, you can hear the Regents
meeting of Jan. 22, 2015. The Regents only archive their recordings of meetings
for one year (for no good reason). Thus, in order to record the meetings for
longer archiving, yours truly must do it in real time, i.e., one hour of
meeting time takes one hour of recording time.However, we now have the Jan. 22 meeting which was notable for a de facto rejection of a policy that
would gear coach pay (very marginally) to academic achievement.The degree was so slight that the Regents
chose to send the proposal back to UCOP for reworking.

The session began with public comments featuring complaints
about the tuition/funding plan, a warning of a (then) upcoming one-day doctors’
strike in student health services, complaints about nonunion pay and
conditions, and a push for fossil fuel divestment.A brief demonstration followed. (The sound is cut
off.)

The Regents approved a modified budget for the DOE labs
after a major fine reduced payments to be received.

During discussion of the governor’s budget proposal for UC,
it was noted that UC pension debt was listed in the proposal as a state
liability although no money was allocated to deal with it.

There were reports on mental health provisions available to
students and on Ebola preparations.

Various high exec pay decisions elicited complaints but were approved.

As noted above, the big news item that came from this
session involved a UCOP proposal that was billed as linking coach pay to
academic achievement. (The discussion starts around 2:13 at the link below.) Doubts had been expressed about this matter the previous
day. Lt. Gov. Newsom, who had pushed back against an earlier UCOP proposal on
coach pay at a prior Regents meeting, criticized the new plan as doing nothing.
Gov. Brown was less vocal but also voted against endorsing the plan.Athletic administrators, including from UCLA,
really didn’t respond directly to the criticism but instead tended to say they
were doing a good job already in dealing with the issue.

The meeting concluded with President Napolitano
reporting on various awards received at UC.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

A new ranking of public universities doesn't put UC on top. Berkeley is #5, UCLA is #6, UC-San Diego is #15. We don't put much faith is such rankings since weights and factors used tend to be arbitrary. But this one may get attention in California, simply because of the timing and the fact that the semi-privatized U of Michigan is on top. The survey comes out at the same time that UC and the governor are negotiating over state budget contributions and tuition and the legislature is trying to get into the game with hearings.

The premise is always that UC is the number one public institution. Now there is at least a headline suggesting otherwise.

UC has released a report on per-student costs, summarized on the chart above. Apart from general puff, the report goes into the methodology used to divide up spending. As has been noted on this blog before, there is inevitably much arbitrariness in any such division. Is the library for teaching or research or service? The electric bill? The phone bill? Mail delivery? Landscaping? Administrator salaries? Can you precisely divide graduate education from undergraduate when grad students are employed as TAs in undergrad courses? Students are engaged in research projects. Is that engagement teaching or research? Etc., etc. Actually, the legislature really isn't hung up on the figures and methodology. It is standard practice nowadays to say that more "transparency" is needed when you don't like something (like tuition increases, for example). So now the legislature has a set of numbers. Will they be seen as transparent enough? Probably not. But at the moment, what the legislature really wants is not lessons in accounting or more charts and graphs. It wants more of a role in the budget/tuition negotiations currently underway between the governor and Napolitano.

By making a goodwill gesture, UC prez Napolitano puts the onus on the governor to reciprocate. The move is also timed with legislative hearings on the UC budget:

The University of California will not raise tuition for the upcoming
summer sessions, UC President Janet Napolitano announced in her lecture
at USC Wednesday. “Because (budget) discussions are still ongoing, and because the
Legislature is still at work putting together the state budget, I am
announcing here today that UC will not implement a previously approved
tuition increase,” Napolitano said in the lecture. She said the University is doing this as a good-faith gesture with
respect to ongoing negotiations, and to free students from uncertainty
and unpredictability. In November, the UC Board of Regents passed a proposal to
increase tuition by up to 5 percent annually for the next five years if
there isn’t a sufficient level of state funding. According to the
proposal, the tuition increase would begin in summer 2015. This delays the potential tuition increase to fall quarter, although Napolitano said she hopes the hike can be avoided...

Some blog readers may recall the “Asians in the Library”
episode at UCLA in 2011.A UCLA student
ranted about Asians in the library on a YouTube video – apparently to get
attention as part of some venture on the Internet.Chancellor Block then made a counter-video on YouTube, condemning the
rant.* Of course, the student who did the rant-video – although enrolled at
UCLA at the time – was not speaking in any official capacity for the university.No one could hold the university officially
responsible for her remarks.But at that
time, UC and UCLA officials seemed to feel responsible for everything that
occurred in some relation to the university which could result in an unfortunate
“campus climate” and could tarnish relations with the external world.

In an earlier post, we noted that matters that go on in
student government – in contrast to the Asians in the Library rant – do have
a formal connection to UCLA and UC. Student government is recognized as an official body representing all students. We suggested that rather than try to
apologize for unfortunate events in student government that have occurred of
late, mainly in the context of conflicts between anti-Israel and pro-Israel student politicians, it might be best to loosen the connection between student government
and official UC and UCLA.**It is the
official status of student government that makes UC and UCLA in some sense
formally responsible for what goes on there.

At present, given its budgetary problems with the state and governor, UC
needs friends in the political world and needs general public goodwill.Folks in the legislature, for example, are
currently contemplating steps to erode UC’s longstanding constitutional autonomy.*** Such erosion would be a Bad Thing.The student government events described below in the Daily
Bruin seem unlikely to promote such needed external friendship; they suggests why UC/UCLA
and student government need a greater degree of separation:

Last week, I attended acouncil
meeting to support my roommate, sorority sister and best friend, Rachel Beyda,
as she went through the last step of being confirmed by the council as an
appointed justice to the Judicial Board of the Undergraduate Students
Association Council. I greatly admire Rachel’s academic success and the passion
and determination she has demonstrated toward her goal of becoming a lawyer. I
have seen her accrue immense leadership skills and experience in the legal
field, both at UCLA, as the current law clerk for the Judicial Board and beyond.
Therefore, as I ascended the stairs to Kerckhoff 417, I incorrectly assumed the
confirmation of Rachel’s appointment would be quick and simple. Rachel had been unanimously approved
by the Appointments Review Committee consisting of three council members before
she flawlessly introduced herself to the council. However, the first question
directed at her by General Representative 3 Fabienne Roth was an attack on
Rachel’s ability to be a justice based on her involvement in the Jewish
community. At President Avinoam Baral’s insistence, the question was phrased
slightly more considerately by Transfer Student Representative Negeen
Sadeghi-Movahed, but this first question set the tone. Rachel finished the
interview, making two important points: first, anyone qualified for the
position would be a critical thinker who is knowledgeable about campus issues
and therefore, has his or her own opinions and second, she has no significant
political affiliations. Furthermore, she demonstrated an understanding of what
actually having a conflict of interest means and acknowledged thata
justice should remove herself from the decision-making process under those
circumstances. Rachel was asked to leave the room for council discussion. What
followed was a disgusting 40 minutes of what can only be described as
unequivocal anti-Semitism during which some of our council members resorted to
some of the oldest accusations against Jews, including divided loyalties and
dishonesty…

Chancellor Block could make another YouTube response video about the event described above.But in the end there is one key
difference.The Asians in the Library YouTube rant he condemned in his 2011 video response was not an official university activity.Were he to make such a video response, or issue a
similar statement today, about the issue described above, he could not say the
same for student government.In its
current format, student government is not just another extracurricular activity,
let alone something separate from the university.

I am always reluctant to comment on student processes to avoid even
the appearance of influence. However, I want to applaud the Daily
Bruin’s fair and principled editorial, “Objections to USAC Judicial
Board appointment discriminatory,” published on Feb.12, that took to
task the questioning of the qualifications of a candidate for the
Undergraduate Students Association Council Judicial Board specifically
based on her Jewish religious and personal identity. What would we do if
a candidate was questioned because she or he was African American or
undocumented, and issues related to diversity, immigration or
affirmative action were expected to arise? I hope all Bruins recognize
the need to rededicate ourselves to the work of embodying our True Bruin
values and our commitment to the broader goal of sustaining a
multiethnic democracy that respects the dignity of all its members. I
believe our community is more generous, thoughtful and inclusive than
this particular incident would suggest.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

We have commented before on the opposing strategies of UC and CSU. While UC kicked up a fuss with state politicos because of its tuition plan, CSU quietly limited enrollment. UC has also kicked up a fuss because of its admission of out-of-state students. Now comes word that a CSU campus will limit enrollment of (California) students from outside its local area. [See below.] Somehow, what CSU does bothers nobody (except students rejected). No one seems to see. At UC on the other hand, we get a Committee of Two, legislative hearings, op eds, etc.

One of California’s largest public universities may tighten admission
requirements, as Cal State Northridge proposed Monday reducing its
enrollment by 1 percent. Stricter academic standards for nonlocal
incoming freshmen, undergraduate transfer students and graduate students
were put forth by the school. About 300 students per year would be
turned away, a CSUN spokeswoman said. The increased burden would
make test scores, transcripts and other admission criteria harder for
students outside the school’s local service area, mostly the San
Fernando Valley, and for local students seeking to major in popular
subjects. Those subjects are Kinesiology, Music, Psychology and Cinema and Television Arts. The university president called the reduction “impaction.” ...

Monday, February 16, 2015

...In hearings beginning this week, the Assembly will apply the
principle of zero-based budgeting to the UC budget. Through the
zero-based budgeting approach, every line item of an organization’s
budget must be approved, rather than only changes from the previous
year. This allows for a thorough public discussion of the items
contained in an organization’s budget, and it gives the agency the
opportunity to show that each dollar is being spent for the intended
purpose and in the right way. Under the leadership of the
Assembly Budget Committee, these hearings will give UC the opportunity
to show efficiencies it has made – and to identify further efficiencies
needed. The hearings will also give the Legislature an opportunity to
scrutinize whether each dollar that could be spent holding tuition at
its current level would be better spent on a different UC priority, as
UC President Janet Napolitano suggests...

What does it mean? Zero-based budgeting is a nice-sounding concept that came along in the 1960s. For most ongoing programs at the federal, state, or local levels, it really turned out to mean, well, zero. What it means in this context is that the legislature is frustrated because the university's tuition/funding plan is being negotiated by Brown and Napolitano because it has zero representation on the "Committee of Two."

Today's LA Times carries a lengthy update on the litigation over UCLA's Hannah Carter Japanese Garden. Blog readers will know that UCLA closed the garden - located in Bel Air - and attempted to sell it over the objections of members of the family of Edward Carter, former chair of the Board of Regents, who gave it to the university.

...The garden was donated by Edward W. Carter, a former UC regent, and his
second wife, Hannah Locke Carter, under a 1964 agreement that the
university would maintain it in perpetuity. In 1982, the parties agreed
that proceeds from the sale of the Carters' house would be used to fund
certain endowments and professorships.

...Despite four mediation sessions, the most recent in November, the two
sides have failed to come to terms. But, with the case expected to go
to trial this summer in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Santa
Monica, some of those involved say the family members and the university
could yet resolve their differences. "A settlement is always on
the table," said Craig de Recat, an attorney for the Regents of the
University of California, which owns UCLA and pays its bills...

"I am optimistic that we will ultimately reach a settlement between now
and the trial date in July," said Jim Caldwell, one of Hannah Carter's
five children, who lives in Woodside in the Bay Area. "Alumni and donors
want to believe in the university."